Hacker News Reader

Comment by timmillwood | Hacker News Reader

I am struggling to justify buying a phone now that won't ship for 10 months. By then Apple, Samsung, HTC etc will all have far superior devices

View on HN

This isn't buying a phone. This is making a donation to support the project [1], and, if all goes well, you'll be rewarded with a very cool phone.

[1] I'm pretty sure I've got this right. The text I'm referencing is from their FAQ:

  > What if you fail to reach the funding target?
  >
  > We appreciate every bit of support we receive during the 
  > 30 days, and every backer will be welcomed into the 
  > Ubuntu community. If we don’t reach our target then we 
  > will focus only on commercially available handsets and 
  > there will not be an Ubuntu Edge.

(edit: I picked a terrible FAQ item to support the point that I was trying to make, which is that the phone may take longer than predicted to produce, and there's even a possibility that it'll never be produced. I think that Canonical is being very responsible by raising a lot of money as a hedge against the risks, but still, there are some risks.)

No, if the campaign doesn't succeed, Indiegogo won't take your money. The campaign is only funded if they raise the full $32m, so there is no worry of not paying and not receiving the phone.

Yes you are correct. I screwed up by pasting the wrong FAQ item.

What I was trying to get at is that there's no guarantee of a phone even if the project is funded.

You get all the risk of an investment, and all the rewards of a consumer!

> What I was trying to get at is that there's no guarantee of a phone even if the project is funded.

Guarantee from whom?

Normally I'd agree, because the fundraiser is typically a startup, perhaps a limited company, with no existing business with which to back refunds. So they could burn through the money and end up with nothing to issue refunds with. So from your perspective, there's no guarantee, since suing them would certainly do you no good anyway.

But what about an established company? If they want to guarantee it, why can't they? But, of course, are they? I'm not sure whether they're saying they are, or whether the law would say that they are. But I don't think it's as clear cut as the new startup case.

  > Normally I'd agree, because the fundraiser is typically a 
  > startup, perhaps a limited company, with no existing 
  > business with which to back refunds.

What type of entity is raising the funds (startup, limited company, etc.) is irrelevant. The point is that they are asking for an investment, and yes, as you point out, there are no refunds if an investment doesn't work out.

This is very different from the mindset of a consumer, who is purchasing the product that was created with the investors money. If the investment doesn't pan out, the consumer has nothing to buy. The investor looses their investment.

My concern is that by offering product in exchange for investment (essentially a forward contract[1]), consumers are lured into taking on the risks of investors. The language on the fundraising page is, unfortunately, quite vague about this.

Again, I'm not saying that Canonical can't deliver, and I'm certain that they'll do their best to make this work out. I do wish that they'd make a better effort of warning off people who think they're simply buying a phone that won't be delivered for many months.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_contract

While this is true, I think most people treat Kickstart/Indiegogo et all as pre-order services. They're definitely "buying a phone" rather than donating to a project, you only have to look at the comments section of overrunning projects to see people demanding to know where there "order" is.

I doubt that anybody else will have more than 4GB of RAM or 128GB of flash in 10 months. There may be some phones that match it, but I would be willing to give great odds that there won't be a mainstream phone with more.

It's a 32bit chip anyway, can they even support more than 4GB of RAM? (or even all of that - PCs couldn't, it was 3.5 - 3.7GB visible to apps)

PC's can/could via PAE. Each application could only address 4GB (of which some would need to be set aside for mapping in other stuff than application data). Don't know if 32bit ARMs support hacks like that, though.

It looks like the latest 32-bit ARM chips have this capability [1]:

40-bit Large Physical Address Extensions (LPAE) addressing up to 1 TB of RAM. As per the x86 Physical Address Extension, still only 32-bit address space is available per process.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A15_MPCore

I'm pretty sure they're putting an Intel chip in this one.

You clearly haven't read the specs: Fastest multi-core CPU

And even if the software sucks, it's got a screen made of synthetic sapphire and a body made of an alloy so hard that when civilization collapses around you, you can use it as a hand-axe!

(I ordered one yesterday: I am a sucker for this sort of shiny.)

I'm really surprised they wrote that, as it seems bound for legal issues. They cannot possibly guarantee the fastest multi-core CPU (what, a Haswell? Oh, just "mobile" -- well what if Apple or another non-seller has the current fastest multi-core mobile CPU at the time?)

I doubt it would be superior.. . Seems to me the specs for the processor are not set yet and Apple, Samsung, HTC etc don't currently have a phone up to par. Meaning AT BEST they would be equivalent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com